Daily Republican., 1887-12-07
FOURTH EDITION
csast rrseeesiing.

and AsecStAt Houston and fsyntcr on
toe e.ueA. Toe iary IN the cAssc OF
MeCArsnay, keany n % vs. l., Y
R1ek 4 - were changed oy the c.hiei
1aatoe, - 20 ssid that there were four
d sestieas involvcd in this care, the hrst
ot which vas whether the material on
~hteh pay meat 10 claimed we're sup
Piled en- the credit OF the hEildiI q, and 4
A. thss 10 . question OF fAst, would be
for tts le.erm.ne. Sscoad, are
these n ..sa ...s such as are within the
aeAnipS of the mechanics lien law.
Aad rs tAls is q question of law, 10
secsms tbs daty ofthe court TO tnstruc,
on Il. TIE thirt question 10, whether 4
ths paymen, OF 81. 100 was insended 70 I
he credited 10 the charge for the plush,
which wss used In making the curtain I
in sse ~ the Acadsny?
Fourth: Was this the understanding i
netxeSn the pAr,iess Tue twe last q uos' I
toEs esing those OF fsct, 1t devolvet on |
the tlts 10 ee.ei mipe thtm. In regard
to tie trs; q aestior. II the jury believed
that The IaAIefial WAS furnished on the
erseii Of ,hs enildirz the plaintiffs are
entitled 10 recover. The s,fiot snd fair
construction OF the secord question i'm. (
plies thai the ptovisioEs Of The mechan-
ies' lien law docs not permit any OF the
articles taraished 10 b. inclnded by II.
Bat Is ha, been adm i'.ei by TIE defend.
ant tbs. the plush used in the conslruc-
tioa os the curtain Was . part OF the
op!ldisR and ss such Il comes withta
the Provisions OF that lsv. In conclu.
sica, the Chief Justice said that 10 the
jay believed the evidence OF the plain.
tif IN regard 20 crediting the III, 100,
they would be justified In finding q
verdict for the plaintiffs for the plush
used 10 tue curtain. but II they thought
tais money Was paid with the under.
standing that IL wEs 70 be credited on
the plush, they would have 10 dnd for
the defendant.
The ehArse was concluded at 10. 40
o'c!ook. and the jury retired.
A ilry was thou drawn 70 try the case
OF RsrE 81 Stump vs. Thomas Forj ,ex.
steEit. with Levi G Bird, E'Q for the
plaintiff and Samuel A. Maca.lisler,
Esq for the defendant
TAis is suit In renleyin, in which
tie vAlne OF l6 horses and u 10. OF har.
ness srd wagons Is involved, the facts
o. " slch are as iollowt: Patrick Pslu
dible, 6 railroad contractor of Hartford
County, Nd, owed Herman Stump
g. 500, which was secured By chsttei
N m1Itasse on his horses, wagons and
hsrtese Piiudibic broush. this prop
eriy 70 Wilmingtcp, and It Was levied
apo and seiEsd on foreign attach
nCl. nt the Instance cf George 8. Good
OF Perrsylvat!I. GA the day sdver
.issd for the tale 10 take place the
property Was rep.evined By Mr.. 5iupp,
who however permitted the sale to go
on, and this suit Ia 10 recover the money
:ea.iEed a. the sale, and nov in the
haBds O! Il Sheriff Ford.
After tie chAttel IL mortgage bad BEEN
read aud caae stated 20 tho Jury by Mr..
Bird be commenced the examination OF
Witnesses
Aoram Carroll was sworn, and testi-
fed tha. he knew when Prindib.e
brought tho horses TO Wilmington in
'the Summer OF 1885; the horses were
e. z ID On q foreign attachment, eud
nine Of them sold, but the remain ~ 4
seven were taken rRck 70 Hartford
County, Nd by the witness. nj The re-
quest Of hr. stump aud Mr. Bird.
Herman Stump ,eS;!tsi that he held
a ehsttcl mortgage on TIE property, and
did 10. know that Er. piindible had
brought 10 Wilmington until he re
c ived o telegram fron him stain I
hAAb a. LAl bNCI rII4sA SI y
tachmsnt. As he was very busy be did
not get 10 attend TO the m after until The
day OF sale, when he cane to this city
aud after retaining Mr.. Bird replevlped
the property, bat as he possessed thI
power 70 sell the property he allowed
The gale 70 proceed, and nine were q !S
tpo.sd o.
George Z. Walker testified tha, II
1885 he IVES Sheriff OF HEIford County
| Nd, Lnl sold seven horses, the prop
lsrty q PatncS Pr!ndible; OF tho 10
ssanca OF MIR stump. VITO bought eve
Of them Llm se!t. This was The lasl
wttn6ss called By the plaintiff, aud Mr.
Bid closed his Gaze BY n aiding rece.p p'
from Tholas Ford for s204, which bs
was to ho.i subject to the decision oi
ihs case.
Mr.. Macslister then commenced tbt
Mutation OF witnesses for the de
fsnse, and Manuel R!chenbHrEer va,
sworn.
BE testiaei that be kept tho hnrss 81
the rtqEss' - Mr., Stump, Sheriff FoId
snd Patrick Prindible.
The case WAS then submitted withou,
ar2ument, and the jury, under iustruo
tiona OF he Court, rendered vsTd c
Tor the , .a,nIiti for Si9S IL With 8 cent?
cosn.
The cnse o, Daniel A. Forrest vs.
Andrew b jones WAS then taken uI
and Jury dra9n.
The Jury in tie cage OF Mccartney
ksnnsy K Co, Va. l. p Buck & Co
came IN A. II 10 o'clock aud rendered q
verd'c' II favor of the plaintiffs fol
S1.7lO II
Mr.. H5ysl entered a motion that tht
verdict b set aside, ard II wa. held
updeE csasidsIat,on.
Toe jury IN the csse OF Daniel a
Forrest -, AEdre1 B Jones WAS Ihtr
sworn All the TRIAL commenced, vi;I
j. FtaaE Esli AMI Willism 4. Ly nam
Esoe., for the plaintiff and Levi @
Bro, L Tor the defendant.
THIS is aao,her mechanics lien case
aod A. a,sd 10 the jury by Mr.. Bal! II
| as follow:
In March, 1886, Bailey s. Hughei
bad 8 contract to build kitchen fol
Andrew 3 Jones at his residence, or
Fifth rect, wet OF jefferson. On the
Z1;h OF "a. month Daniel A Forrest
made til to Bailey & Hughes TO d.
the brick work, which was accepted by
them. Re cOmmesced work at ono;
and con p.e.sd the buildiug April 90 b
: 1896 As Bailey & H1ghss did not paJ
for the work this suit Is brought TO re-
. cover he amount OF the clatm, smouni
w To u IS. with interest frcm Juat
25th, lssj
Daa.sl A, Forres. was sworn, ant
I tesihtc hat he IA a bricklsyer sDC
contract d with Bailey 81 Hughes u
n2lId f!tclsn at Mr.. Jones' residence
he comm ncet work March %, 1855
and CON p!eied It Ap:i 20 CT the Bam'
year /. wss his understanding tba
tpe credit o. the building WAS good fol